Rajasthan Court January 1998 Judgments
Surya Prakash and Naraini Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC118
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Appellant Surya Prakash, his mother appellant-Naraini and his father Shankerlal faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City- Jaipur, who by his impugned judgment dated 3.5.1996 giving benefit of doubt acquitted Shankerlal but convicted appellants Surya Prakash and Naraini for the said offences and sentenced each one of them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default of payment of fine to further under go imprisonment for one month on the first count and to three years Rl and a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days' imprisonment on the second count. He further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.2. The facts of this appeal are short and simple and can be recapitulated within a narrow compass. Deceased Beena was married to appellant Surya Prakash on 5.3.1991. At the time of marriage, Surya Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Mahesh Kumar and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ1597; 1998(2)WLC206
S.C. Mital, J.1. Appellants Mahesh Kumar and Billa alias Virendra Kumar stand convicted under Sections 363 and 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment, Rs. 2007- fine or in default 3 months' simple imprisonment and 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine or in default 3 months' simple imprisonment respectively by judgment dated 31 -8-96 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Hanurnangarh in Sessions Case No. 35/95. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal.2. The incident took place in the intervening night of 21st and 22nd May, 1995 in Sangariya town. The prosecutrix Annu is the daughter of Roshan, Lal Arora resident of Ganganagar and she had come to meet her maternal grand parents at Sangariya. During the night she was sleeping on a cot in front of the house and her maternal ' father Munshi Ram and maternal mother Smt. Rukmani Devi (P. W. 2) were sleeping nearby her cot. Rukmani Devi woke up at about 12.30 ...
Tag this Judgment!Roop Ram Vs. Kamlesh Deka and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-29-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC165; 1998(1)WLN207
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant on the allegations that the respondents have wilfully and intentionally disobeyed the judgment and order of this Court dated 1.9.1994 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2840/1983.2. The petitioner-applicant stated that he was working as the Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Rajasthan State Police since 1964 and on his own violation, he joined the Border Security Force on 1.3.1969. There had been some dispute regarding seniority and consequential reliefs, i.e., dates of consideration for further promotion in the Border Security Force and the applicant filed the said writ petition, which was disposed of and the relevant part of the main judgment reads as under:The petitioner has now contended in this petition that his seniority is liable to be considered as Head Constable from the date he was Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in the State Unit as required by Rule 8 of the Rules.However, during the penden...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Chandra Vs. Sri Kishan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj131; 1998WLC(Raj)UC273
Bhagwati Prasad, J. 1. The Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur made the instant reference to this Court under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure (referred to hereinafter as 'C.P.C.') and Order 46, Rule 1, C.P.C. as the said Court was seized of a Misc. Appeal in which the following question was involved :-- 'Whether, in a suit for eviction under Section 13(1)(a) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as Rent Act) on the ground of alleged second default, if it is expected from the trial Court, to provisionally determine the rent as per provisions of Section 13(1) of the Rent Act.'While making the aforesaid reference, the Court of Additional District Judge took into consideration various judgments of this Court i.e. Hanuman Prasad v. Gardilal, 1973 Raj LW 584: (AIR 1974 Raj 41), wherein a learned single Judge observed as under (at P. 42 of AIR):--'It may be pointed out that Sub-sections (4) and (5) have been introduced...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Lal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: II(1998)DMC434
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Admittedly the parties are husband and wife and they have entered into compromise. As the compromised case was not compound- able under Section 320, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Trial Court did not attest the compromise. Against this order of the learned Trial Court that the present action for filing this miscellaneous petition has been resorted.2. This Court in Santokh Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 RCC 618, has observed as under:'This Court has taken a consistent view that even though the offences may not be compoundable, but this Court under its inherent powers can quash the proceedings if the ends of justice so demanded.'3. In Om Prakash Modi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1994 (1) RLR 389, this Court propounded as under:'I am always of the view that matrimonial offences are basically family problems, than being offences against the society. Adjustment and tolerance are safe ways for a happy married life. Incidents do take place between ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajmal and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2626
P.C. Jain, J.1. The appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374, Cr. P.C. against the judgment dated 18-9-1997 of the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh passed in Sessions Case No. 199/94 whereby both the accused have been convicted for the offence Under Section 8 read with Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and each appellant has been sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine to undergo six months imprisonment.2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the S.H.O., Shri Rajendra Singh is alleged to have received some secret information that contraband opium would be sold by Rajmal and Ramnarain. This information was then forwarded to the Dy. S. P., Chhoti Sadri and Additional S.P., Pratapgarh. Thereupon acting on the above secret information the Dy. S.P., Chhoti Sadri organised a patrolling party and armed with petromax and other necessary items reached Nikum Road at Sarthala ...
Tag this Judgment!Hamir Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-28-1998
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC313; 1998(1)WLN105
P.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the order passed by the State Government under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the proceedings taken in pursuance thereto.2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition may be stated as follows. Under the provisions contained in Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 1955 proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner filed his declaration and submitted all the relevant details of his family members and the land before the S.D.O., Bali. After considering the relevant record, the S.D.O., Bali came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not holding any land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him. He. therefore, passed an order on 20.5.1974 dropping the proceedings initiated against him. The copy of the order dated 20.5.1...
Tag this Judgment!Shamumal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj248
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J. 1. Brief fads of the case arc that Municipal Council. Jodhpur had granted a lease in favour of M/s. Shree Automobile Works, Jodhpur of plot of land measuring 16400 sq. ft. situated at Old Bhandelaw. Chopasani Road, Jodhpur for 30 years from 3-12-60 and the lease deed was executed on 10-2-61. The properly was in possession of M/s. Shree Automobile Works. Jodhpur. There was a partition between the partners of the firm and one of the partners Shri B.B. Gandhi submitted an application before the Municipal Council, Jodhpur for partition of the disputed plot. The partition was sanctioned by the Municipal Council, Jodhpur on 1-8-69 and plot measuring 7265.87 sq. ft. fell in the share of Shri Gandhi. Ultimately, this properly tell in the hands of the petitioner, who is doing business in the name of Jodhpur Diesels Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner submitted an application on 17-7-85 to the Municipal Council for renewal of the lease and requested the Municipal Council. Jodhpur to ...
Tag this Judgment!Om Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: AIR1998Raj181; 1998(3)WLC347; 1998(1)WLN107
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J. 1. The petitioner is a licensee for selling of Milk Burfi, Mawa Rasgulla and Gulabjamun at railway platform of Luni Junction. The petitioner was operating trolly from the date he held the licence with effect from 1-4-1974. The petitioner's licence was renewed from lime to time. On 4-6-1997 an order was passed that the licence of the petitioner has expired on 31-3-1996 and the petitioner has not executed an agreement for renewal of the licence and therefore he be stopped from operating his trolly No. 16 at Luni Junction. The order passed against the petitioner was challenged in the writ petition. The writ petition was registered as S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2261/97 (Om Prakash v. Union of India and others). On 21 -8-1997 the order was passed by the Court.It is directed that the petitioner shall present himself on 26-8-1997, before the respondent No. 2 the Divisional Railway Manager, Jodhpur Division Northern Railway. Jodhpur or before the officer nominated by ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Singh and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-23-1998
Reported in: 1998CriLJ2131
ORDERP.C. Jain, J.1. The petitioners have filed this III hail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C. The accused petitioners along with other accused are facing a sessions trial in case No. 9/96 State v. Ramniwas and Ors. pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana for offences under Sections 364, 365, 147 and 302, I.P.C.2. The brief facts of the case are that the F.I.R. in the case was lodged by Sugan Singh on 14-9-1995 at P. S. Khunkhuna in which it was alleged that his son Tejraj, a student of 10th class, had gone to take supplementary examination that was held on 28-8-1995 in Deedwana High School. After the examination was over, he returned from there but did not reach his house. He searched for him at various places but without any success. When he made inquiries he came to know that Tejraj alighted from the train at Chhoti Khatu Railway Station and from there the accused persons physically lifted him in a jeep and fled away. Thereafter his dead body was rec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »